Why is our entertainment complex lodged in the middle of a sewer system. No half a brain engineer would do that, ever. Yet we are to believe that the omnipotent creator of the universe did just that? I often wonder what creationists think when they are sitting on the can, engaged in the painful process of excreting near liquid feces, red in tone, dripping out of their arses. Do they think that is the work of the devil?

Trapezkerl, your question has already been answered. If you don't like the answer, that's another story.

Trapezkerl,I think that this is the third time that I see you complain about our plumbing, peeing and pooping. Why is that?

I don't have any problems with my plumbing. Peeing and pooping, in other words, relieving yourself is one of life's little pleasures, and it is free.

You don't think so? Then I recommend adding more fiber to your diet, and more water too. Add some cranberry juice too. I've heard that it helps clear out urinary track infections, if that's the problem.

Oh, and low-carb diets can make you hate your plumbing too. Carbs are loaded with water and some even with fiber. Protein and fat have neither water nor fiber. People don't realize how much they lower their water and fiber intake when they go low carb.

What's so screwy about our plumbing anyway? Waste is processed and ejected. So what? If you are sick it throws everything into a bit of chaos....same would happen with the best designed machine if it needed maintenance.

I wonder what the manufacturing defect rate would be for a machine like that vs the defect rate for people at age 18?

Those who believe the earth and life on earth just materialized and that we all evolved from the same single-celled organism have not followed the preceding tenants. So, from that standpoint, the theory of evolution suffers from "frailties."

Those who believe the earth and life on earth just materialized and that we all evolved from the same single-celled organism have not followed the preceding tenants. So, from that standpoint, the theory of evolution suffers from "frailties."

Scientific speculation about the origins of reality is happening. Does that disprove Evolution as a useful scientific theory?

No.

Why? B/c we can analyze our origins in mathematical concepts without resorting to a catch-all--God did it.

Your repeated questioning of evolution does nothing to show me that ID is not a fraud.

I'll ask you again, what does ID contribute to any field of science?

There is nothing but pure speculation when it comes to both the origins of life (under any theory) and macroevolution. Science has not proved how we got here. Science has not proved that we evolved from the same organism. "(1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." Where is the science showing the origin of life (i.e., the very beginning) and macroevolution (i.e., changes from one species to another) using the preceding tenants?

I question certain parts of evolution because many parts of it do not make any sense (see my thread on Billions of Missing Links). I don't question parts of the theory of evolution to try and prove ID. I don't believe I've ever made any argument regarding ID and science.

I have no idea what ID has contributed to any field of science. Never looked at it.

What has the untested, unproved big bang et al. theory and the untested, unproved theory of macroevolution ever contributed any field of science?

There is nothing but pure speculation when it comes to both the origins of life (under any theory) and macroevolution. Science has not proved how we got here. Science has not proved that we evolved from the same organism. "(1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." Where is the science showing the origin of life (i.e., the very beginning) and macroevolution (i.e., changes from one species to another) using the preceding tenants?

I question certain parts of evolution because many parts of it do not make any sense (see my thread on Billions of Missing Links). I don't question parts of the theory of evolution to try and prove ID. I don't believe I've ever made any argument regarding ID and science.

I have no idea what ID has contributed to any field of science. Never looked at it.

What has the untested, unproved big bang et al. theory and the untested, unproved theory of macroevolution ever contributed any field of science?

Yes it is speculation. It is speculation grounded in science. Do you think that Einstein went to mercury to observe and explain the Daisy petal effect of precession? No. He developed mathematical theories for it.

Inferences are part of science as well. Remember that.

You cling to the same fundamental misgivings time and again:

*The scientific method has not proven everything re origins therefore it is on par with ID

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true

Now that I've shown you how science works re our origins, show me how ID explains it.

"Billions of missing links"

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Yes it is speculation. It is speculation grounded in science. Do you think that Einstein went to mercury to observe and explain the Daisy petal effect of precession? No. He developed mathematical theories for it.

Inferences are part of science as well. Remember that.

You cling to the same fundamental misgivings time and again:

*The scientific method has not proven everything re origins therefore it is on par with ID

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true

Now that I've shown you how science works re our origins, show me how ID explains it.

"Billions of missing links"

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Yes inferences are part of science. Inferences are all we have about the origins of life and macroevolution. You didn't show how science works regarding the origins of life. The first part of the information you posted says "The origin of life remains very much a mystery . . . ." It later uses words like "could have" and "hint." In other words, this is pure, untested speculation. There isn't even a uniform theory about how it all started, because it hasn't been tested and proved.

And the excerpt you cut and pasted regarding transitional fossils establishes what exactly? Did you read the thread? Some very compelling questions/issues IMO.

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." - Antony Flew, former prominent atheist

Antony Flew Considers God, letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, October 10, 2004.

Yes inferences are part of science. Inferences are all we have about the origins of life and macroevolution. You didn't show how science works regarding the origins of life. The first part of the information you posted says "The origin of life remains very much a mystery . . . ." It later uses words like "could have" and "hint." In other words, this is pure, untested speculation. There isn't even a uniform theory about how it all started, because it hasn't been tested and proved.

And the excerpt you cut and pasted regarding transitional fossils establishes what exactly? Did you read the thread? Some very compelling questions/issues IMO.

Yes, the origins of life are a mystery. They will forever remain a mystery if ID is our model for analysis. ID is not science b/c, although it relies on inferences, it uses irrational unscientific premises in its analysis.

Supernatural causation is not part of scientific analysis. We might as well be discussing gnomes.

God as an absolute causative factor cannot be a scientific premise b/c self referental groups in logic are irrational: The group denotes god. This results in a second group of god and the god group. This destruction of reason goes on into infinity. Hence we cannot conceptualize in any meaningful way an absolute creative force. Therefore it is not subject to scientific inquiry. Therefore it is not science. It is irrational.

On that basis alone, there can be no intelligent design with a foundation in science.

Yes, the origins of life are a mystery. They will forever remain a mystery if ID is our model for analysis. ID is not science b/c, although it relies on inferences, it uses irrational unscientific premises in its analysis.

Supernatural causation is not part of scientific analysis. We might as well be discussing gnomes.

God as an absolute causative factor cannot be a scientific premise b/c self referental groups in logic are irrational: The group denotes god. This results in a second group of god and the god group. This destruction of reason goes on into infinity. Hence we cannot conceptualize in any meaningful way an absolute creative force. Therefore it is not subject to scientific inquiry. Therefore it is not science. It is irrational.

On that basis alone, there can be no intelligent design with a foundation in science.

I was talking about evolution. Your criticism of ID, which wasn't my point, doesn't change the fact there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution that "science" has not filled.

I was addressing these comments:

Quote

ID is a conclusion based on supernatural premise(s) and is not subject to the rigors of the scientific method or analysis.

Evolution does not suffer from the same frailties as ID.

That's simply not factual. Might be your opinion, which is fine, but the "rigors of the scientific method or analysis" has not established how it all started or macroevolution.

NOVA will be airing a new dramatization of the Dover, PA case on November 13 at 8:00 pm.

When the religious non-science of Intelligent Design was forced on the children of Dover, PA, reason and science, as well as the Constitution, teachers, and parents, fought back. ID and its proponents were utterly rebuffed and defeated.

Make sure to watch the documentary. Also check the page above for a preview as well as lots of good info.

i actually saw parts of that when i was going to bed one night. i was half asleep and the fell asleep so i missed most of it...sounded interesting though

I was talking about evolution. Your criticism of ID, which wasn't my point, doesn't change the fact there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution that "science" has not filled.

I was addressing these comments:

That's simply not factual. Might be your opinion, which is fine, but the "rigors of the scientific method or analysis" has not established how it all started or macroevolution.

Evolution on a macro scale relies on inferences (all science relies on indirect evidence) from basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection to form a viable hypothesis.

Where does ID derive its inferences from?

Irreducible complexity?

That's pure fiction. Otherwise show me one irreducible complexity.

So we should fill the gaps in Evolutionary Theory with God and ID?

That's the God of Gaps argument that has been discredited. It's not science. Evolution is science b/c it is falsifiable--we haven't found any creatures created by spontaneous generation yet.

I don't know, but right off the top of my head, I can think of one great contribution that the Intelligent Design movement has made to science, particularly Biology. I.D. triggered the process of many publishers to clean up modern Biology text books of garbage like the fake Hackel drawings and the peppered moth. Otherwise, these, which have been part of biology text books for many many years, uncritically and unquestioned, would have continued to be included in biology text books for many more years to come.

"Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication. This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors."

2. Texas State Board Of Education - Public Hearing on Textbooks, July 9, 2003.

About the Peppered Moth and modern Biology texts:Many biology and life science textbooks use industrial melanism as an example of natural selection, displaying an illustration of the peppered moth undergoing evolution. Unfortunately, many of the textbook photographs of the moths consist of preserved specimens stuck to tree bark (If your textbook contains these photos, note that the wings of the moths may be in unnatural mounted positions.). This “faking” of moth distribution was used to test the likelihood of predation based on visibility of prey.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IVthe_times.shtml

I don't know, but right off the top of my head, I can think of one great contribution that the Intelligent Design movement has made to science, particularly Biology. I.D. triggered the process of many publishers to clean up modern Biology text books of garbage like the fake Hackel drawings and the peppered moth. Otherwise, these, which have been part of biology text books for many many years, uncritically and unquestioned, would have continued to be included in biology text books for many more years to come.

"Holt, Rinehart and Winston however acknowledged that it re-evaluated the use of the peppered moth and Haeckel’s drawing of embryos icons from its textbook prior to publication. This was stated in a reply to the Texas State Board Of Education's public hearing on textbooks during which Mr. Frank Mayo commented: "As a result some of these icons have been removed from the current offering of biology textbooks; but, unfortunately, other icons still remain. These contain serious factual errors."

2. Texas State Board Of Education - Public Hearing on Textbooks, July 9, 2003.

About the Peppered Moth and modern Biology texts:Many biology and life science textbooks use industrial melanism as an example of natural selection, displaying an illustration of the peppered moth undergoing evolution. Unfortunately, many of the textbook photographs of the moths consist of preserved specimens stuck to tree bark (If your textbook contains these photos, note that the wings of the moths may be in unnatural mounted positions.). This “faking” of moth distribution was used to test the likelihood of predation based on visibility of prey.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IVthe_times.shtml

Science, as an endeavor, is always in a constant state of re-examination. Text books should be up to date. That lends no credence to ID though.

Yes, but the text books were not re-examined when it came to these. The text books were not up to date when it came to these. Regarding Hackel's fake drawings, text books were outdated for 100 years even though Scientists back then knew these were fake.

This article is debunking critics who use these as an excuse to say that Darwin's whole theory is wrong, but that is not what I'm saying. A clean up of Biology text books was long overdue. I was giving you one contribution I.D. made to science.

Yes, but the text books were not re-examined when it came to these. The text books were not up to date when it came to these. Regarding Hackel's fake drawings, text books were outdated for 100 years even though Scientists back then knew these were fake.

This article is debunking critics who use these as an excuse to say that Darwin's whole theory is wrong, but that is not what I'm saying. A clean up of Biology text books was long overdue. I was giving you one contribution I.D. made to science.

I know what you are saying but that's not a scientific contribution that goes to the heart of whether ID is a valid scientific model for biology.

I know what you are saying but that's not a scientific contribution that goes to the heart of whether ID is a valid scientific model for biology.

ID is just Creationism is disguise. It it not a theory at all. It cannot be tested, corroborated, confirmed or anything else for that matter. It basically says, that's too tough for us to understand, hence is was designed. That very much goes against the inquisitive and pioneering nature of true science.

Creationism/ID is really just about ego. People who cannot psychologically come to terms with the fact that we are animals and primates, with no special role or destiny and just one more species in the realm of biology/history, likely to go extinct as 99% of all species have, hang on ID/creationism for the psychological benefits it provides, not for valid scientific reasons.

ID is just Creationism is disguise. It it not a theory at all. It cannot be tested, corroborated, confirmed or anything else for that matter. It basically says, that's too tough for us to understand, hence is was designed. That very much goes against the inquisitive and pioneering nature of true science.

Creationism/ID is really just about ego. People who cannot psychologically come to terms with the fact that we are animals and primates, with no special role or destiny and just one more species in the realm of biology/history, likely to go extinct as 99% of all species have, hang on ID/creationism for the psychological benefits it provides, not for valid scientific reasons.

The not being able to “psychologically come to terms with….” tag falls on the evolutionists and atheists, as they don’t want to accept that there is God, and He is sovereign over heaven and earth. Nor, do they want to be accountable to Him. So, they devised a method to claim that life came from nothing, with no guidance and no design. Or as the Bible puts it, man simply worships the created, instead of the Creator.

And, as I mentioned a few days ago, evolutionists themselves have admitted as much. To recap:

The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. (Now who can't psychologically come to terms with what, again?) It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954